ArticleClinical optometry2021
Agreement Between Retinoscopy, Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction for Determining Refractive Errors in Congolese Children.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, subjective and autorefraction in a young adult Ghanaian population.Ghana medical journal · 2026Article
- Comparing Close-Field and Open-Field Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- IMI-Instrumentation for Myopia Management.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Article
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparisons of objective and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia using binocular wavefront optometer with autorefraction and retinoscopy in school-age children.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Auto-refraction versus subjective refraction in different phakic and pseudophakic conditions: the Tehran Geriatric Eye Study (TGES).International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Low-Concentration Atropine Monotherapy vs. Combined with MiSight 1 Day Contact Lenses for Myopia Management.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Ocular Residual Astigmatism in Eyes with Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism and Its Interaction with Other Forms of Astigmatism.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- The Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Refractive Errors among a Youth Population in Mozambique: Evidence of the Need for Intervention.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparison of refractive examination results in children with and without cycloplegia using retinoscopy and autorefractors.Oman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- Instrument-based, non-cycloplegic versus cycloplegic refraction in pediatric and young adult populations (≤25 years): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the agreement between retinoscopy and autorefractometry and between subjective refraction and both retinoscopy and autorefractometry in Congolese children. PATIENTS AND
methodsFifty-four children (6-17 years old) were enrolled consecutively in this cross-sectional study. Refraction was evaluated before and after cycloplegia (1% cyclopentolate) with retinoscopy and autorefractometry. Readings were compared (paired
resultsUnder cycloplegia, the spherical power was comparable between retinoscopy and autorefractometry (1.12 ± 1.37 D vs 1.22 ± 1.06D, P = 0.70), cylinder power was significantly more myopic on retinoscopy than autorefractometry (0.80 ± 1.10D vs -0.62 ± 0.66, P = 0.019), and SE was greater on autorefractometry than retinoscopy (0.91 ± 1.10D vs 0.72 ± 1.00D, P = 0.014). Retinoscopy and autorefractometry overestimated the power of spherical (P = 0.022 and 0.002, respectively) and cylindrical components (all P < 0.001). There was an agreement between retinoscopy and autorefractometry in measuring spherical (bias: 0.09 ± 0.16D; limit of agreement, LoA: -0.40 to 0.22D) and cylindrical power (bias: -0.18 ± 0.20D; LoA: -0.57 to 0.21D). Subjective refraction agreed with cycloplegic retinoscopy for determining SE power (bias: 0.11D; LoA: -0.51 to 0.73D).
conclusionRetinoscopy and autorefractometry can be used interchangeably in children for determining the power of spherical and cylindrical components. Cycloplegic retinoscopy is better than autorefractometry to obtain SE reference values for subjective refraction in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.